Page:U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources.pdf/17

Rh the Government, through a suit “brought in [the Government’s] name.” §3730(b)(1). Or else, as here, that interest is to obtain dismissal of the suit because it will likely cost the Government more than it is worth. Either way, that interest does not diminish in importance because the Government waited to intervene. Congress decided not to make seal-period intervention an on-off switch. It knew that circumstances could change and new information come to light. So Congress enabled the Government, in the protection of its own interests, to reassess qui tam actions and change its mind. See S. Rep. No. 99–345, p. 26 (1986) (explaining that the Government should have a continuing chance to intervene because “new evidence” might cause it to “reevaluate its initial assessment”). When it does so, nothing about the statute’s objectives suggests that the Government should have to take a back seat to its co-party relator. The suit remains, as it was in the seal period, one to vindicate the Government’s interests.

We thus arrive at this case’s second question: When the Government, having properly intervened, seeks to dismiss an FCA action over a relator’s objection, what standard should a district court use to assess the motion? The Third Circuit held that the appropriate standard derives from Federal Rule 41(a), which governs voluntary dismissals in ordinary civil litigation. See 17 F. 4th, at 389–391. Under that Rule, the standard varies with the case’s procedural posture. If the defendant has not yet served an answer or summary-judgment motion, the plaintiff need only file a notice of dismissal. But once that threshold has been crossed—as in this case—dismissal requires a “court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 41(a)(2). Again, both the Government and Polansky object from different directions. The Government thinks it has essentially unfettered discretion to dismiss; Polansky